Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

captbarnacles

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

I think Boy A regrets being caught. That's about it.

retro:electro

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

But you said that by saying she was naive that was alsmost saying that the boys weren't totally responsible. I don't understand why you would equate comments about her 'not being streetwise' or 'being very innocent' as people seeing her fate as being partly her own fault. Surely it makes the boys almost worse (if that could be possible) for deliberately targetting a girl who they knew would be easily taken in and would go trustingly with them to an abandoned house.

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

optogirl

I think I'm just crying out to hear that these boys had a terrible home life, neglect or trauma or SOMETHING that would give some reason for why this happened. It's awful but I am actually hoping that they came from terrible homes because the alternative is just so scary.

mrjoneill

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Seems to me they have one regret that is getting caught

Grayson

topmanamillion wrote: »

Parents should control their feral children.

I dont buy this stuff for a second about it being "the teachers responsibility". Passing the buck nonsense at its finest.

The process should be Teacher informs parents - parents take necessary action against their child to stop it.

Instead of that, the process is more often than not: Teacher informs parent(s) - Teacher is verbally abused by parent(s) for having the cheek to point out their child's wrong doing - Teacher left under no illusion where the bully has gotten their behaviour from.

Do we have any evidence that the parents didn't look after their kids? This was the first offence they comitted. No-one says there were warning signs that the parents could have noticed before.

Ace Attorney

joe40 wrote: »

A school can only suspend pupils, that is their only sanction. When you have difficult children they can go trough the whole range of sanctions available in a few months. Expulsions are virtually impossible.

There are plenty of kids in schools all around Ireland where suspensions aren't even a punishment, just a few days off.

How a school is responsible for the actions of these boys is beyond me.

When a serious assault occurs and the school doesnt protect its students its not good enough. The school isnt responsible for what happened to ana at the hands of these boys tho. Thats a huge stretch of blame to claim that.

But regardless i was actually refering to the serious assault another poster was saying happened at the school by boy a and b. And was wondering was it sweeped under the carpet.

mrjoneill

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

Little vermin that the sewer rats would avoid.

mrjoneill

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Regret their liberty is curtailed only

Igotadose

optogirl wrote: »

I think I'm just crying out to hear that these boys had a terrible home life, neglect or trauma or SOMETHING that would give some reason for why this happened. It's awful but I am actually hoping that they came from terrible homes because the alternative is just so scary.

Psychopathy in children is about 1% probability. Sometimes, you get the Harris/Klebolds of the world teaming up (and massacring others.) Sometimes, you get Boy A and Boy B, and it's not due to 'nurture.' They're born with it. Researchers can usually tell when the kids are 3 or 4 years old. So, yeah, scary indeed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/when-your-child-is-a-psychopath/524502/

Nerdlingr

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Provided the blue sticky tape. He told the Gardai this - didnt have to say anything. giving someone tape is not a crime unless you know what they are going to use it for
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder. collecting ana and bringing her to the house is not a crime, it only becomes a crime if he knows what will happen
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.CCTV has him in the skate park - not going to and from the "scene"
4. Told lies about where he saw her last. again, he told lies. he spoke. didnt have to say a word
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry. not a crime - could easily said last time i saw was her in the field
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.not a crime
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.not a crime - you cannot convict someone on a "look"
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana. did they? thought it was only Boy A they saw. Anyway, again not a crime unless he knows what is about to happen

He would have got it hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

tayto lover wrote: »

We’ll have to agree to differ then.
The miles away bit I forgot to include. Why not outside her home or in anywhere there might be others not intent on harming Ana.
I would have convicted him on what I posted if I was on a jury. Maybe it’s a blessing i wasn’t and that it didn’t come to that.t
He’s as guilty as sin as we all know now anyway.

Yeah we'll have to agree to differ alright. I've no doubt he's guilty as sin as well, but my point was if he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing on him. I've broken down your points above.
There is nothing close to a conviction if he doesn't talk. No link to the scene, no witness to the attack, no lies to tell, no covering his tracks, no tape.
All they have is a witness account of him calling to the house and walking through the park on CCTV with Ana. That wouldnt even get close to court with the DPP. Never mind a murder conviction.

mrjoneill

Strazdas wrote: »

Boy B referred to Ana as a "weirdo" at one point. It's obvious they regarded her as 'other' and different. If ever they were going to go after someone, it would be someone they perceived to be different. Maybe they somehow thought it would increase their chances of getting away with it or something.

Absolutely he was on manipulation mode, "she was only a foreign slut we could do without" to diminish the nature of the crime.

average_runner

TheW1zard wrote: »

I figured out who they were in 10 minutes by using the google machine. I dont know if they should be named or not though thats a tricky one.

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

Boggles

mrjoneill wrote: »

Absolutely he was on manipulation mode, "she was only a foreign slut we could do without" to diminish the nature of the crime.

Where did that quote come from?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m sorry, I’m finding your comment a little confusing. But to clarify; to my mind, the only “if only” that should truly matter is if only two boys weren’t such lying and entitled vicious murdering scum.

Maybe I took you up wrong, but you seemed to be saying that you were uncomfortable with people describing Ana as naive and innocent because it seemed as if by saying so they were taking some of the blame from the boys' shoulders and basically implying that if only she had been wiser it wouldn't have happened so it wasn't totally their fault.

I found that a strange view.

jmayo

BarryD2 wrote: »

Apparently the school can't even be named now. How on earth would naming the school facilitate the identification of the convicted? Of course you can say, why should the school be named - nothing to do with them? Unless you consider the bullying?

However I still think the efforts to limit public commentary in this area is a little concerning.

That fooking school should be named and shamed because it looks like they let a lot of stuff go.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I wonder what the boys think inside their own heads.

Do they regret it? Does it give them nightmares?

Reading some of the snippets of the interviews with Boy B I would doubt it.

As I have always maintained he is a right little boll**.

The way he pretended to be shocked when pieces of information were revealed to him and how he then threw his accomplice under the bus really shows his character.

And I am normally a critic of AGS as an organisation and a lot of Garda, but I have to highly commend all the officers involved in this case.

They picked up on things and they got to as near the truth as possible considering the awful case and the people they were dealing with.

80sChild

Grayson wrote: »

Do we have any evidence that the parents didn't look after their kids? This was the first offence they comitted. No-one says there were warning signs that the parents could have noticed before.

I have a hard time believing they went from "Normal" to rape/torture/murder without even a hint of a dark side to their personalities. Much more likely to have been some indicators.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

average_runner wrote: »

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

There have been loads of posts on here saying the parents should be locked up as well, they're probably abusers, etc etc etc

You don't normally see that being said about adult criminals.

Penn

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Yeah we'll have to agree to differ alright. I've no doubt he's guilty as sin as well, but my point was if he doesnt talk, the gardai have nothing on him. I've broken down your points above.
There is nothing close to a conviction if he doesn't talk. No link to the scene, no witness to the attack, no lies to tell, no covering his tracks, no tape.
All they have is a witness account of him calling to the house and walking through the park on CCTV with Ana. That wouldnt even get close to court with the DPP. Never mind a murder conviction.

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

joe40

Ace Attorney wrote: »

When a serious assault occurs and the school doesnt protect its students its not good enough. The school isnt responsible for what happened to ana at the hands of these boys tho. Thats a huge stretch of blame to claim that.

But regardless i was actually refering to the serious assault another poster was saying happened at the school by boy a and b. And was wondering was it sweeped under the carpet.

I fully agree if an assault takes place the school should be obliged to punish the children involved, and if it wasn't dealt with then absolutely that is not good enough.

The point I was making is that school sanctions have little influence on the hardcore elements in our schools (they are a minority but a difficult minority)

Parents should also remember that the law of the land does not stop at the school gate, there is nothing stopping parents taking legal action. Sometimes maybe that should happen more often.

TheW1zard

average_runner wrote: »

Don't understand why its a tricky one. Don't believe its to protect the family.

Or are we saying they system doesn't care about a family if an 18 year old does the crime

I mean its a tricky one as in, Im not sure what good would come of them being named as they are minors. Should kids be exempt, is it diminished responsibility?
If they were named, and they do there time, there whole lives are ruined, then are we saying the legal system didnt do enough? (prison time)
Maybe they should be named though, like i said I dont know its a tricky one!

Nerdlingr

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree, and it's a testament to the detectives who interviewed him that they recognised there was more to his statements and were able to keep dragging more and more info out of him. There was no physical or forensic evidence, but his initial lie just allowed them to keep unravelling his story.

Had he said nothing, including after they pointed out they knew he was lying after his first interview, they would have had nothing on him unless Boy A were to flip and say he was there.

Fair play to the detectives. His conviction was based almost solely on those interviews and how the detectives pulled the lies apart and got him to dig a deeper hole for himself.

Just on that point, anything in your statement cannot be used in evidence to convict another person. So even if Boy A said Boy B was there it would mean nothing.

retro:electro

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

Maybe I took you up wrong, but you seemed to be saying that you were uncomfortable with people describing Ana as naive and innocent because it seemed as if by saying so they were taking some of the blame from the boys' shoulders and basically implying that if only she had been wiser it wouldn't have happened so it wasn't totally their fault.

I found that a strange view.

I’m not uncomfortable with people describing her as naive and innocent. She was naive and innocent and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m uncomfortable with people saying “if only she was X” or “if only she was a little more street wise”, because Ana didn’t need to change one thing about herself or how she was in order to avoid being murdered or lower her chances. She was perfect as she was. The only people who needed to alter their behaviour are the ones who are responsible for beating her to death.

I know people don’t mean any harm by their comments, I even said I know people are well intentioned- it’s just something that irks me every time I read a comment like that. That is all.

Omackeral

joe40 wrote: »

The story as quoted is accurate, there was "paedo" graffiti daubed on a paediatrician house.
Later exaggerations about beatings etc are false.

The point about mob/vigilante violence is still valid, mistakes can and are made.

People are idiots. I remember reading about Balbir Singh after the 9/11 attacks.

Balbir Singh Sodhi a Sikh-American gas station owner in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered in a hate crime in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. This was the first of several cases across the United States that were reported to the police as supposed acts of retaliation for the attacks.

Balbir Singh Sodhi, who wore a beard and a turban in accordance with his Sikh faith, was mistaken for an Arab Muslim and murdered by 42-year-old Frank Silva Roque.

average_runner

Priscilla Mushy Banner wrote: »

There have been loads of posts on here saying the parents should be locked up as well, they're probably abusers, etc etc etc

You don't normally see that being said about adult criminals.

If an 18 year does a crime, the family gets a really rough time, no protection for the younger siblings etc.

Faugheen

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

average_runner

TheW1zard wrote: »

I mean its a tricky one as in, Im not sure what good would come of them being named as they are minors. Should kids be exempt, is it diminished responsibility?
If they were named, and they do there time, there whole lives are ruined, then are we saying the legal system didnt do enough? (prison time)
Maybe they should be named though, like i said I dont know its a tricky one!

All of that would apply to an 18 year old also but he/she would be named

average_runner

Faugheen wrote: »

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

They are going have to release the identity or more innocent kids will get hurt in the wrong

Standman

tayto lover wrote: »

1. Provided the blue sticky tape.
2. Called for Ana and took her to the scene of her murder.
3. CCTV caught him coming and going from the scene.
4. Told lies about where he saw her last.
5. Didn’t volunteer any information to the missing persons enquiry.
6. Was a close associate of Boy A.
7. That look between the two of them that made the detectives aware that they were lying about where they separated in the park.
8. Witnesses saw him heading towards the house with Ana.

He would have got it hard to get out of it You don’t always need physical evidence.

Nerdlingr wrote: »

None of that means a thing/or comes to light if he doesnt talk.
They only have him on CCTV and an eye witness who saw him. Thats it.
Far far far from a murder conviction. Miles away.

Journalist who covered the case for the Irish Times also agrees with Nerdlingr in his extensive article:

"Compared with Boy A, Boy B’s defence was much easier to predict. No forensic evidence linked him to the murder scene. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence against him came from his own mouth during his eight Garda interviews. If he had remained silent it is highly likely he would never have been charged."

Nerdlingr

Faugheen wrote: »

So an innocent child was wrongly identified as one of the boys.

Stop sharing the photos and names, lads. I don’t like this either but someone’s going to get seriously hurt.

Someone on here thought a picture of two lads on facebook was one of them.
It wasnt. It was the two guys that tragically drowned in a quarry in Clare last year. :( This is the problem.

Brego888

What was Boy A's defense in the case? What approach did his barrister take given the glut of evidence against him?